Re: [Lime] [Errata Verified] RFC8531 (5719)

wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com> Wed, 08 May 2019 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <wangzitao@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9420A12007A; Tue, 7 May 2019 20:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nc1tWRPVDVXL; Tue, 7 May 2019 20:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ACE012002E; Tue, 7 May 2019 20:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id AE6C25A7B10995296A66; Wed, 8 May 2019 04:11:04 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 8 May 2019 04:11:04 +0100
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 8 May 2019 04:11:04 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 8 May 2019 04:11:03 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.122]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:10:51 +0800
From: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "nmalykh@ieee.org" <nmalykh@ieee.org>, "dekumar@cisco.com" <dekumar@cisco.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
CC: "ibagdona@gmail.com" <ibagdona@gmail.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Errata Verified] RFC8531 (5719)
Thread-Index: AdUFS3Tb04kfKYf4Tk6aXMLmpD+V6A==
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 03:10:51 +0000
Message-ID: <E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2D9AAC7C@DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.142.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/mXvMSIVHIRlCdyYAAwxDGZ95UIY>
Subject: Re: [Lime] [Errata Verified] RFC8531 (5719)
X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." <lime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lime/>
List-Post: <mailto:lime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 03:11:09 -0000

Dear All,

This errata is correct and should be accepted.

Best Regards!
-Michael 


-----邮件原件-----
发件人: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org] 
发送时间: 2019年5月8日 3:42
收件人: nmalykh@ieee.org; dekumar@cisco.com; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>;; wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>;
抄送: ibagdona@gmail.com; iesg@ietf.org; lime@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
主题: [Errata Verified] RFC8531 (5719)

The following errata report has been verified for RFC8531, "Generic YANG Data Model for Connection-Oriented Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Protocols". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5719

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@ieee.org>; Date Reported: 2019-05-05 Verified by: Ignas Bagdonas (IESG)

Section: 4.4

Original Text
-------------
   There are several RPC commands defined for the purpose of OAM.  In
   this section, we present a snippet of the Continuity Check command
   for illustration purposes.  Please refer to Section 4.5 for the
   complete data hierarchy and Section 5 for the YANG module.


Corrected Text
--------------
   There are several RPC commands defined for the purpose of OAM.  In
   this section, we present a snippet of the Continuity Check command
   for illustration purposes.  Please refer to Section 4.7 for the
   complete data hierarchy and Section 5 for the YANG module.


Notes
-----
Incorrect Section No.

--------------------------------------
RFC8531 (draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-07)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Generic YANG Data Model for Connection-Oriented Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Protocols
Publication Date    : April 2019
Author(s)           : D. Kumar, Q. Wu, Z. Wang
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG